Jharkhand High Court
State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy ... vs Ahamad Mian & Ors on 24 November, 2011
Author: R. K. Merathia
Bench: R.K. Merathia, D.N. Upadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Acquittal Appeal ( DB) No. 11 of 2011
With
Criminal Revision ( DB) No. 588 of 2010
----
Acquittal Appeal ( D.B.) No. 11 of 2011
The State of Jharkhand .....Appellant
Versus
1. Ahamad Mian.
2. Maqbool Mian.
3. Mansoor Mian.
4. Mustakim Ansari.
5. Anwar Mian.
6. Minhaj Ansari.
7. Abid Mian.
8. Rahim Mian.
9. Bhikhan Mian.
10. Budhan Mian.
11. Jahur Mian.
12. Samsul Mian. ....Respondents
-----
Criminal Revision ( DB) No. 588 of 2010
Khalil Ansari .....Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others .....Opposite Parties
Coram: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. MERATHIA
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY
---------
For the Appellants : Mr.T.N. Verma, APP
in Acquittal Appeal No. 11/2011
For the Respondents : Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, Advocate
For the Petitioner : Mt. P.K. Nayak, Advocate in
Criminal Revision No. 588/2010
For the State : Mr. Binod Singh, APP
--------
Order No. 9 Dated the 24th November, 2011
Both the cases were heard together at length. The lower court records including the evidences were perused.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-State and the informant submitted that the learned trial court has wrongly acquitted the accused persons on the grounds that- the injury on the informant was not proved and therefore he was not an eye witness; the medical evidence does not corroborate the manner of occurrence alleged ; no independent witnesses were examined; and P.W-3 was disbelieved on the ground that he did not specifically say as to who assaulted by which weapon.
3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the informant, submitted that in paragraphs 43 and 46 of the case diary, the injuries sustained by P.W-5-informant, are mentioned, but it was not considered.
4. The prosecution case in short is that the accused were ploughing the field of the informant. The informant and his uncle Aseraj Ansari forbade them. On this, the accused persons started assaulting by farsa, axe, sword, rod and lathi, due to which he sustained injury and his uncle died.
5. P.W-2-Meraj Ansari ( the son of the deceased) has turned hostile. P.W-3-Shamim Ansari is projected as an eye witness but from paragraph 5 of his cross-examination, it appears that he is not an eye witness. P.W-6-Mazloom Ansari has also been projected as an eye witness but in view of the major contradictions in the evidences and the case made out in the FIR, the learned trial court has rightly disbelieved him as an eye witness. P.W-5-Khalil Ansari (the informant) is also projected as an injured eye witness but the injury report though was available on record has not been proved on behalf of the prosecution. Moreover, from the injury report, it appears that the informant sustained one lacerated injury, swelling and abrasion caused by hard and blunt substance and which was found to be simple in nature. P.W-8-Dr. Marshal Aind is the doctor. He found two lacerated injuries on upper and left part of scalp of the deceased, though there is allegation of causing injuries by sharp cutting weapons also. The version of the informant does not find support from any independent witness.
In our opinion, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the learned trial court has rightly recorded the order of acquittal after considering the respective cases of the parties and the materials brought on record by them.
In the result, the Acquittal Appeal and Criminal Revision stand dismissed.
( R. K. Merathia, J) ( D.N. Upadhyay, J) Rakesh/